Rule 46A compliance sustained remand where additional evidence was not furnished to the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal's remand to the Assessing Officer was upheld because the additional evidence filed before the CIT(A) had not been furnished to the Assessing Officer, establishing breach of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Delhi HC confined itself to that procedural issue and did not examine the merits of the assessment or the quantum dispute, since those matters had not been decided by the Tribunal. On the facts, the appellant failed to show compliance with the Rule 46A requirement, so the de novo remand was held legally justified and no error of law was found in the Tribunal's order.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer on the ground of breach of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, when additional evidence had been filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) without being furnished to the Assessing Officer.

Analysis: The appeal turned only on the question whether the additional material placed directly before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had been supplied to the Assessing Officer as required by Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Court declined to enter into the merits of the assessment or the quantum dispute, since the Tribunal had not decided those issues and had remanded the matter solely on the basis of the procedural lapse. The appellant was unable to show that the additional evidence had been furnished to the Assessing Officer, and the breach of the mandate of Rule 46A was therefore established. In these circumstances, the remand ordered by the Tribunal was held to be legally justified.

Conclusion: The remand to the Assessing Officer for de novo consideration was upheld, and no error of law was found in the Tribunal's order.

---